To think "politically correct" is one of the most over-used and misused terms around?

[Nennypops]

I keep seeing the term 'politically correct' being used all over the place as a catch-all terms of abuse by people who clearly have no idea what the term means but want to convey that whatever it is that they disapprove is in some way unnecessary, wet, lentil-knitting, left-wing, or even positively harmful.

For the sake of convenience, I'll adopt the definition of political correctness given in Wikipedia - "a term that refers to language, ideas, or policies that address perceived or actual discrimination against or alienation of politically, socially or economically disadvantaged groups. The term usually implies that these social considerations are excessive or of a purely "political" nature. These groups most prominently include those defined by gender, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation and disability."

I accept that it can be valid to criticise over-sensitive concerns about discrimination, but I've seen the term used in defence when someone is called out for blatant racism/sexism/homophobia etc and richly deserves it. It usually signals to me, frankly, that the person in question is even more of an a*hole than their original conduct suggested - they are trying to suggest that they are in some way justified and that complaining is ludicrously over-sensitive.

If I see the term incorrectly used in support of what otherwise might be a valid argument, it instantly annoys me and changes the way I view the person using the term. It tends to be used in relation to things which seem to me to be self-evidently beneficial - e.g. breastfeeding, the right to a fair trial, the right of children not to be left with abusive parents, etc. It is also quite often used for things that have no conceivable element of political correctness at all; I once saw it used in relation to the suggestion that it would be an idea to take an umbrella out when it's raining.

Seems to me that it's time to make the term completely redundant. If you find yourself about to use the term "politically correct" just stop, and find some other way of expressing your views.

"OK, then Claig. Give me a specific example of somebody you think has been silenced by political correctness, and what they wanted to say, and also something you have said which you think would be considered not politically correct.

'If you were one of my students you would without a doubt be failing the course'

I would take that as a badge of honour, standing up against the tide of groupthink, Orwellian newspeak and political correctness

I would take that as a badge of honour, standing up against the tide of groupthink, Orwellian newspeak and political correctness
Again, what a nonsense, you should try reading Orwell, he required empirical evidence. That is real, valid evidence. You are stating that it is a badge of honour to not know what is actually happening in the world.

The use of the terms "insane", "lunatic" and "idiot" which you originally suggested, Claig, should have been continued was in the contact of Finance legislation and related to people lacking the requisite mental capacity in law to be able to manage their tax affairs. It was in essence a hangover from Finance Bills going back for decades until someone rightly pointed out that it was inappropriate.

When you try to justify that by reference to Charles Manson, you really are showing your desperation. Do you seriously contend that the older usage is more appropriate in the context of the Finance Bill than "lacking mental capacity"? Why?

I continue to be interested that even you shy away from trying to justify the use of the term "lunatic". Can we hope that even you acknowledge that that is inappropriate and offensive?

Everyone I know who uses the term "political correctness gone mad" or the like seems to just really mean "I miss the days when I could use derogatory racial slurs and make fun of people for their sexuality without being made to feel like the small-minded bigot that I am."

Yes, this sums it up for me too. OP, YANBU.

I have a daughter who is severely disabled as she is described as a client by her care agency and social care support network and I don't really have an issue with it as they see themselves as a service and service provider!

I think in a hospital setting it's always a patient though. But a care home, I am not sure it is

I'd still like to know what terms you'd like to replace client of a homelessness service and visually impaired with.

The closest to Newspeak on this thread is you Claig. You are deeming some words unacceptable but not offering an alternative word, just as they did in 1984.

OK, then Claig. Give me a specific example of somebody you think has been silenced by political correctness, and what they wanted to say, and also something you have said which you think would be considered not politically correct.

I'm not in agreement with Claig and I believe that Political Correctness as I understand it in it's modern form is a good thing. Making certain language in professional environments which have discriminatory connotations unacceptable and holding certain public officers to certain standards or at least making them aware that the language they use may be interpreted in different ways by the people they owe a duty to is no bad thing.

However arguments like this:
"Those who think that freedom of speech curtails their freedoms are usually those that have something particularly unpleasant to say and ergo do not deserve freedom of speech."

Surely arguments like this means there is validity to part of her arguments. i.e. you have the freedom to say anything you want as long as it's something I approve of.
Unpleasant and dissenting views are precisely what freedom of speech is there to protect.

As an aside, I always think of people who defend the right to say what they like to people are arseholes and haven't been at the receiving end of discrimination themselves.

When we went on holiday last year we went out for a meal as a family. We were sitting eating our dinner, minding our own business and this couple, who looked perfectly nice and normal arrived and were sat on the table behind us. He said to his wife, loud enough for me to hear 'don't look now love but there is a Joey behind you'

In what circumstance should that be defended? My daughter was 13 the time.

Is someone actually defending the idea that my son should be referred to as an 'idiot' in a piece of legislation?
Someone talk me through that.

We don't have free speech in the UK and never really have done. I don't have an issue with that.

Whatever wiki has to say on the subject and in spite of the baffling obsession with 'pc' in the context of global warming the day to day reality is that most people who say 'I know it's not pc to say so but...,' are usually about to be a massive cunt.

"Is someone actually defending the idea that my son should be referred to as an 'idiot' in a piece of legislation?
Someone talk me through that."

It's a word that's been used for hundreds of years. Changing it will mean we are going to be taken over by communists. Or Stalinists. Or fascists. Or socialists. One of them, anyway. Do you understand now?

You have freedom of expression which covers free speech tbf with certain limitations most notably defamation and language which incites hatred or violence.
People expressing extremely distasteful opinions in their private lives is still protected but I'd accept it's not protected to the same scale as America for example.

"'I know it's not pc to say so but...,' are usually about to be a massive cunt."

I'm yet to hear that sentence end in any other way than thinly veiled hatred of a minority group.

Mayor. I did mean only with reference to homophobic, racist disablist etc. language. I could have been clearer, apologies.

Thanks for the explanation Martorana
That has clarified things for me - certainly my uspicion that often people defending 'Un-pc' will then go ahead and act like a cunt.

The word has been used for years and now has clear and negative connotations. So why would society not simply adjust and change to a word that identifies that they mean people with learning difficulties.

Martorana.
I think my post read aimed at you.
I shouldn't post when I am cross.
Apols

' You are deeming some words unacceptable but not offering an alternative word'

I am not deeming words unacceptable. I just prefer homeless person to client.

'"Is someone actually defending the idea that my son should be referred to as an 'idiot' in a piece of legislation?
Someone talk me through that."'

I said I don''t know what the context is so I am not defending anything. i quoted froma telegraph article, it is not my position.

However, I see nothing wring with saying "Farage is an idiot" or a "fool" etc. That is the sense in which the word is most often used.

A person who is homeless describes a situation, maybe that's why they prefer to use client?